Search This Blog

Subscribe to this blog

Follow by Email

THR3E (2007) – Film Review

Hi, this is Cap the Filmmaker. I’ve been following the progress of the movie Thr3e ever since the project was greenlighted by Namesake Entertainment. The film is based on the Ted Dekker novel of the same name. You can check out the trailer here.

The following is the official plot synopsis: “When a young seminary student is targeted by a psychopathic killer, he joins forces with a criminal psychologist whose brother was murdered by the same madman. Together they must unravel the killer's riddles and catch him before he strikes again, but the closer they get, the more twisted the path becomes. This heart-pounding thriller will keep you guessing up until the final shocking scene!”

Though the film doesn’t open until Friday, I was privileged enough to receive an advanced-copy DVD (yes, legally). The first thing that stood out to me was the exceptional cinematography and desaturated colors. This looks like a slick Hollywood product, not a cheap, cutesy Christian film. Furthermore, the prologue is one of the most riveting openings I have ever seen in a movie made by Christian filmmakers outside Hollywood. The acting is good all around, and while the storyline isn’t always the most logical, the overall tone of the film keeps the viewer’s interest for—

Hi, this is Cap the Film Critic. I’m sorry, but I couldn’t wait to speak any longer. The Filmmaker dude is about to make me queasy. Sure, the prologue to this film is pretty darn good. Unfortunately, the setup creates the need for an epilogue that is one of the most ridiculous film closures I have ever seen in a film made by Christians outside Hollywood. There are also several lame explosion effects that are used intermittently throughout the production. Could someone have raised just a little more money so they could actually blow a few things up? Then there’s the occasional problem with ADR (Automatic Dialogue Replacement), which makes it very obvious when dialogue was dubbed over the original recording. And why couldn’t the story have been tighter? One of the most riveting scenes doesn’t propel the story forward at all, showing that Christian screenwriters still have a lot of work to—

Hi, this is Cap the Theologian. I’m tired of waiting my turn. The thing is, I’m torn about Thr3e. On one hand, the filmmakers accomplished something few Christians have: they produced a film based on a Christian worldview that is both obviously not secular and yet not manipulatively proselytizing. There is no blatant salvation message and no one prays the sinner’s prayer. Instead, the Christian worldview is an organic part of the story and not an unnaturally forced element of the plot. For that, I am extremely grateful. We desperately need more films like this.

On the other hand, the core doctrinal premise of the film—and this is a problem with the source material—is a gross misinterpretation of a key biblical principle taught by the Apostle Paul. I wish I could go into further detail but that would spoil the ending. Suffice it to say, the theological implications of Ted Dekker’s story are staggeringly unbiblical. I wish Dekker’s semi-Pelagian theology would take a flying leap off—

Hi, this is Cap the Filmmaker again. Okay, so the underlying premise of the film is not in tune with sound doctrine. Namesake Entertainment definitely needs to improve the strength of its theological department. Well, there is no such department, but maybe that’s the problem. Anyway, what the movie espouses is nothing new. People won’t walk away from the film with their worldview irrevocably skewed. Thr3ee is still an engaging story, albeit with plot holes and inconsistencies. It may not be up to par with The Visitation (Namesake’s best production thus far), but it is helping to raise the bar for Christians in the film industry. That is enough of an accomplishment to warrant my recommendation.

Artistic Merit: 5
Personal Marks: 9
Theological Soundness: +10/-10

Rated PG-13 for violence, disturbing images, and terror. [Make no mistake: this is a(n) (appropriately) dark film that deals with the evil of human nature. It doesn’t glorify violence or evil at all, but it doesn’t sugar coat it either. This is, in fact, a sugar-free movie.]

Most Popular Posts

The first assault against Jennifer
Lawrence was heavily discussed in the news and on social media. The second has received
comparatively little fanfare. The first incident resulted in an FBI
investigation, subsequent prosecution, and an upcoming sentencing. The legal ramifications of the second incident are practically
nonexistent. The overall response to the first was outrage. The response to the
second was indifference.

What were these two incidents? The
first, as you may have guessed, was the 2014 iCloud hack in which private/nude photos of several female celebrities, including
Lawrence, were stolen and published online. The second incident involved the
filming of Jennifer Lawrence’s first sex scene (for the sci-fi movie Passengers). Let me set the stage by
sharing three similarities between the photo hack and the sex scene.
First, in the aftermath of the photo hack, Lawrence experienced anxiety. “I was
just so afraid,” she later said. “I didn’t know how this would affect my caree…

Several years ago, Kate Beckinsale
was conned into signing a movie contract that required nudity—something she
didn’t want to do. With her acting career in jeopardy, she found herself
browbeaten by the director. “I was really disturbed and I was sobbing and
begging,” she said.
At long last, she gave in to intimidation and performed the nude scene, which
made her feel
“violated and horrible.” Afterwards, she secretly urinated in
the director’s thermos in revenge.

In more recent history, one
actress from the HBO show Game of Thrones mustered up the courage to refuse doing any more nude
scenes. She is reported as saying
that she wants to be known for her acting, not for her body parts. (It’s a
sorry state of affairs that requires such a statement to be made in the first
place.) When the show started, she didn’t have nearly enough clout to buck the
system. A season of the show’s overwhelming popularity may have been what put
her in a better position to bargain with the producers. Would yo…

If you’re a fan of the 2014 film God’s Not Dead, and if you’re excited
about its upcoming sequel, you and I probably have several things in common. We
likely agree that historic Christianity is becoming less and acceptable in the
public sphere. We likely agree that many of our nation’s college campuses are
becoming more and more hostile to individuals who adhere to any form of
absolutes. We also likely agree that there is an increasing need for believers
of all types—students, teachers, pastors, filmmakers, etc.—to engage with our world
in an effective and countercultural way. It’s actually because of these
shared beliefs that I’m majorly concerned with the popularity of God’s Not Dead (and other movies like
it). And it’s because of these shared beliefs that I want to explain my concerns to you. I’ll put aside most of the
artistic issues I have with the film. (For that, I’ll direct you to my cyber
friends Steven D. Greydanus and Peter T. Chattaway). My main focus here will be on the mov…

* CONTENT ADVISORY: This topic requires a certain level of
frankness that may be inappropriate for some readers. While I have taken great
pains to avoid titillation, reader discretion is still advised. * Last week, we looked at the four main ways in which motion picture sex scenes and pornography are different.
Now I want to show how these factors actually prove to condemn Hollywood’s
methods rather than excuse them. Argument #1: There is often a difference in production
values. Motion pictures are a form of art, whereas porn is unabashed
titillation. Hollywood’s mash-up of blatant
sexuality (nudity and sex scenes) and aesthetics only serves to make its
displays of sex more alluring to the viewer. As supposed works of art,
Hollywood films are concerned with giving their audiences pleasure through
beauty. That’s what aesthetics are all about. What is ultimately more alluring:
a sex scene with bad lighting, poor audio quality, and shoddy production work,
or a sex scene with good composition…

So there I was, surrounded by church members, my pants wet,
my blood boiling. This wasn’t what I needed—at least, that’s what I told
myself.

The morning had started innocently enough. Shannon and I
arrived at our church building later than normal. Because of the pouring rain
and the packed parking lot, I said I would drop Shannon off at the front and then
go park and bring our Bibles and notebooks in. (After all, with an umbrella and
a raincoat at my disposal, my trek across the parking lot wouldn’t be too bad.)
Shannon didn’t want me lugging the books in the rain, so she
grabbed them before heading into the building. I then parked near the back of
the lot and reached for the umbrella.
It wasn’t there. Not in the back seat…not in the front seat.
Not anywhere. Shannon must have taken it inside with her.
Okay. No big deal. I still had my raincoat, and thanks to my
memory of a once-watched YouTube video, I had learned the trick to staying relatively
dry while traveling in the rain: wal…

Yes, I am
still on a Greatest Showman kick. Cut
me some slack, though. My wife and I only saw it for the first time just under
three weeks ago. The soundtrack still plays almost daily in our home, providing
near endless opportunities for our toddlers to daintily prance and spin as they
sing along with “The Circus Man” (as they gleefully call him). Besides, for
someone who’s as unhip as myself, it makes sense that I would be taken in by
such an uncool (according to critics), and yet wildly popular (according to general audiences), movie.

So, what
is my point in writing another post about this particular film? To gush like a
fanboy who has staked a personal claim to gold-encrusted, front-row seats on
the Greatest Showman bandwagon? Not exactly.
(That’s just a happy side effect.) The point of this blog post is to…well,
point out a unique aspect of the song “A Million Dreams.” After listening to this
song a bajillion times (give or take a few), I’ve noticed something
extraordinary about i…

I recently read through Genesis 15, where God reassures Abram, who is currently childless, that he will have numerous descendants (which God had initially promised in Genesis 12:1-3). Abram’s response leads to something amazing: “And he believed in the LORD, and He accounted it to him for righteousness” (Genesis 15:6).

Commenting on this verse, Martin Luther says, “Righteousness is nothing else than believing God when He makes a promise.” The anti-intuitive nature of this statement struck me forcefully. You see, I am unconsciously inclined to think that my striving hard to do well is the kind of righteousness that pleases God. When I obey a particular law, do a good deed, or reject a temptation, then I have earned at least a small degree of God’s favor. But that is not how it works.

God definitely blesses our faith-inspired efforts, but such efforts are…well, based on faith—that is, confidence in God’s promise to pardon and accept me through Christ’s atoning work. If I attempt to som…

Last week, we looked at
Hollywood’s underground culture of sexual
abuse: how actors are routinely coerced into violating their consciences by
performing nude scenes and/or sex acts on screen. While audiences have grown
comfortable with watching such scenes, actors are often uncomfortable (or
worse) with filming them.

Isn’t it true, though, that some actors
willingly undress for the camera? The simple answer is, of course, yes. But
it’s an answer that requires at least two clarifications. And since women are
the majority of the victims in these circumstances, we’ll focus on women for
the rest of the article. First, it’s not as easy as you
might think to discern the difference between willing and unwilling
performances. Take just one example (or, rather, an example in several parts)
from recent history, all involving a “willing participant.” Actress Margot Robbie recounts
how her audition went for the movie The
Wolf of Wall Street. She showed up for the audition in her usual
look: jeans …

Your argument robs adult women of
agency because it says outright that they
are not consenting and implies they
cannot consent. It infantilizes adult women and asserts that they can only
be protected by men with a white knight impulse. We’re getting into an area
where women are regarded as little more than sheep, being led by whatever crook
is nearest.
As regular visitors know, over the past few years I have
focused much of my blog’s attention on how the entertainment industry places
pressure on actors to perform nude and/or sex scenes for audiences. It’s a
problem that is at once both tacitly acknowledged and blithely ignored. I have
argued further that those who suffer most under this burden are actresses.
With my emphasis on women, some readers have responded with
major concerns. I am both thankful for and alarmed by this feedback, because
the quoted critique above is not what I have meant to communicate. Not at all. I
offered a …

Let me tell you about a film that’s garnered a lot of
publicity. The story revolves around a wealthy and debonair businessman with
serious control issues. His sexual tastes involve perverse fantasies, but he
gets what he wants because he’s rich, powerful, and handsome. In telling this
story, the movie doesn’t shy away from depictions of the sex act. The audience
is inundated with sex, in fact. The debauchery is enough to make a lot of
people sick, either with revulsion, pleasure, or a mixture of both.

Do you think I’m talking about Fifty Shades of Grey? Actually, I’m referring to The Wolf of Wall Street, which came out on
DVD just last year.
Many prominent Christian critics loved WoWS, as I pointed out earlier. Fifty Shades of Grey,
on the other hand, has been either ignored or condemned. And yet there are some
glaring similarities in how both movies handle sex.
They both employ stylistic techniques that were labeled as hardcore porn just a few decades
ago. These techniques involve …